Open Stack

On Wed 30 Oct 2013 03:29:32 AM PDT, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> (1) Rating blueprints "low priority" doesn't mean they won't make it. It
> means we have no idea if they will make it. Maybe the proposer doesn't
> have a proven track record of hitting promised deadlines, maybe we don't
> have core reviewers who signed up to review the work even before it was
> proposed. Looking back to the havana cycle you can see that a *lot* of
> "Low" blueprints made it. It's just hard to predict that they would at
> the beginning of the cycle. "Priority" is not really the right word for
> it. "Certainty" would be better.

Or it's evil twin, "Risk" :)

> (2) About creating gatekeepers like "committers": one key difference is
> that anyone can participate in code reviews, so the gatekeepers are
> actually an open group. That makes quite a lot of difference. If the
> process doesn't specialcase "core" reviewers too much and we have a good
> history of objectively promoting people with lots of reviews to "core
> reviewer" status, we should be good.

I have the feeling we keep going back to communicating expectations to 
new participants to the community. Are we putting too much emphasis on 
new commits and too little on new reviews? What do you think if from 
now on the weekly newsletter would mention the new first time 
reviewers? We have that report ready:

http://activity.openstack.org/data/display/OPNSTK2/New+Contributors+First+Review+-+Last+30+Days

What other sort of other incentive do you think we can give to +1ers, 
the reviewers that without being core, can make life so much easier and 
shorten the time to get the +2s?

/stef

--
Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org